Risks grow for Antarctic life

October 7, 2013

Andrew Darby

http://images.smh.com.au/2013/10/06/4808956/am-w-antarctic-20131006215255585300-620x349.jpg
In trouble: Antarctic krill are increasingly at danger as the effects of climate change alter their ecosystem. Photo: Australian Antarctic Division

Turns out it's the little things we need to worry about in climate change. When they are in trouble a great polar ecosystem might also be having problems.

The oceans are absorbing so much carbon dioxide that they are acidifying at an unprecedented rate, the International Program on the State of the Oceans said.

http://images.smh.com.au/2013/10/06/4808938/am-n-antarctic-20131006215438921808-300x0.jpg
Foraminifera: Single-celled marine protozoa threatened by the acidification of the oceans waters. Photo: Getty Images

Geological records show the current acidification is unparalleled in at least the last 300 million years, IPSO's latest report said. ''We are entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change, and exposing organisms to intolerable evolutionary pressure.''
Advertisement

The smallest of these creatures in the Antarctic marine ecosystem are said to be showing some of the early signs of acidification damage. And work by Australian scientists shows even greater problems lie in store for the creature at the centre of the Antarctic food web - krill.

Coalition Environment Minister Greg Hunt said warnings of increasing ocean acidification were the most important new advice from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest report.

''In the debate around climate change, research on acidification of the oceans is a particular personal concern,'' Mr Hunt said. ''This has been reinforced by the work of Australian scientists, particularly in the Antarctic.

''The Southern Ocean is specially vulnerable to increased acidity because of the cold water and the type of marine life. If there are changes in these environments, then there is a flow-on impact across the entire marine system.''

The Oxford-based IPSO scientists reported widespread global biological impacts, including the erosion of coral reefs, tipping past their building rates as soon as 2030-2050.

But the rate of acidification is 50 per cent faster in the higher polar latitudes than in sub-tropical waters, due to the effects of temperature on ocean chemistry, it said.

''Think of it like a cold beer at a barbecue," Donna Roberts of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC at the University of Tasmania said. ''It holds onto its carbon dioxide bubbles longer.

''Remember that 40 per cent of all the carbon dioxide going into the oceans goes into the Southern Ocean. It's going to hit high, and hit hard,'' she said.

Dr Roberts said work on tetrapod snails showed distinct acidification effects. ''We're finding evidence that shell structure has been getting softer since 1997.''

Similar problems face foraminifera, countless micro-organisms which also rely on calcium carbonate for their structure.

But it is the keystone Antarctic species, the shrimp-like krill, that is a focus of concern about future acidification.

Biologist So Kawaguchi said Antarctic krill were already experiencing changing climate stressors such as rising temperatures and changes in their planktonic food production.

In an aquarium world with carbon dioxide elevated at predicted rates, krill eggs failed to develop properly, Dr Kawaguchi said.

If emissions were to continue to rise, harm would increase during coming decades to the point where by 2300, krill would be unable to hatch in vast areas of the Southern Ocean.

Chief scientist at the Antarctic Division, Nick Gales, said work was beginning on the flow-on effects of the loss of krill.

''Animals that don't have the flexibility to prey switch are likely to be more in trouble,'' Dr Gales said.

''Among the whales, it would be the blue whale and the Antarctic minke which are reliant on krill. And there is a whole range of seabirds.''

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/files/images/GREG%20HUNTco2640.jpg

They are trying to morph global warming err I mean climate change into ocean acidification now that the climate is not actually changing, be afraid ... be very afraid  ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 11:42am:

They are trying to morph global warming err I mean climate change into ocean acidification now that the climate is not actually changing, be afraid ... be very afraid  ;D

I thought that you said the Climate Changed naturally??

Are you advocating a STATIC climate model now?

Ocean acidification due to increased CO2 absorption has been studied for many decades.

Your illness is worsening I see. Your religious temples of fossil fuel worship and paranoia and hatred for CLEAN things seem to be withering away like the residual IQ that clearly informs you neurotic self delusional existence

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 11:42am:

They are trying to morph global warming err I mean climate change into ocean acidification now that the climate is not actually changing, be afraid ... be very afraid  ;D

So true Innocent_bystander

Once their theory gets shot down they quickly jump on to something else.

Lucky we have sceptics otherwise these stooges would be worshipping the IPCC findings like some sort of ten commandments from God himself.

Ajax wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 12:24pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 11:42am: They are trying to morph global warming err I mean climate change into ocean acidification now that the climate is not actually changing, be afraid ... be very afraid  ;D So true Innocent_bystander Once their theory gets shot down they quickly jump on to something else. Lucky we have sceptics otherwise these stooges would be worshipping the IPCC findings like some sort of ten commandments from God himself.

Acidification of the earths oceans and fresh water ways caused by increased CO2 absorption from the atmosphere is a fact

By the way, reference to Acidification problems has been included in ALL of the IPCC report released thus far.

Not that I would expect you denialist fossil priests to have read any peer reviewed literature on the subject let alone the executive summary of the IPCC reports.

See what happens when you post spin and deceit?

Always ends up the same way hey darkened Batman and his newly found side kick innocent bystander

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 1:10pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 12:24pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 11:42am: They are trying to morph global warming err I mean climate change into ocean acidification now that the climate is not actually changing, be afraid ... be very afraid  ;D So true Innocent_bystander Once their theory gets shot down they quickly jump on to something else. Lucky we have sceptics otherwise these stooges would be worshipping the IPCC findings like some sort of ten commandments from God himself. Acidification of the earths oceans and fresh water ways caused by increased CO2 absorption from the atmosphere is a fact By the way, reference to Acidification problems has been included in ALL of the IPCC report released thus far. Not that I would expect you denialist fossil priests to have read any peer reviewed literature on the subject let alone the executive summary of the IPCC reports. See what happens when you post spin and deceit? Always ends up the same way hey darkened Batman and his newly found side kick innocent bystander

Like I said chimp, lucky we have sceptics to keep the alarmist propaganda under the microscope.



Quote:

There goes another scare campaign. Until recently we had very little data about real time changes in ocean pH around the world. Finally autonomous sensors placed in a variety of ecosystems “from tropical to polar, open-ocean to coastal, kelp forest to coral reef” give us the information we needed. It turns out that far from being a stable pH, spots all over the world are constantly changing. One spot in the ocean varied by an astonishing 1.4 pH units regularly. All our human emissions are projected by models to change the world’s oceans by about 0.3 pH units over the next 90 years, and that’s referred to as “catastrophic”, yet we now know that fish and some calcifying critters adapt naturally to changes far larger than that every year, sometimes in just a month, and in extreme cases, in just a day. Data was collected by 15 individual SeaFET sensors in seven types of marine habitats.  Four sites were fairly stable (1, which includes the open ocean, and also sites 2,3,4) but most of the rest were highly variable (esp site 15 near Italy and 14 near Mexico) . On a monthly scale the pH varies by 0.024 to 1.430 pH units. The authors draw two conclusions: (1) most non-open ocean sites vary a lot, and (2) and some spots vary so much they reach the “extreme” pH’s forecast for the doomsday future scenarios on a daily (a daily!) basis. At Puerto Morelos (in Mexico’s easternmost state, on the Yucatán Peninsula) the pH varied as much as 0.3 units per hour due to groundwater springs. Each day the pH bottomed at about 10am, and peaked shortly after sunset. These extreme sites tell us that some marine life can cope with larger, faster swings than the apocalyptic predictions suggest, though of course, no one is suggesting that the entire global ocean would be happy with similar extreme swings. Even the more stable and vast open ocean is not a fixed pH all year round. Hofmann writes that “Open-water areas (in the Southern Ocean) experience a strong seasonal shift in seawater pH (~0.3–0.5 units) between austral summer and winter.” This paper is such a game changer, they talk about rewriting the null hypothesis: “This natural variability has prompted the suggestion that “an appropriate null hypothesis may be, until evidence is obtained to the contrary, that major biogeochemical processes in the oceans other than calcification will not be fundamentally different under future higher CO2/lower pH conditions”” http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/scripps-blockbuster-ocean-acidification-happens-all-the-time-naturally/

Ajax wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 1:25pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 1:10pm: Ajax wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 12:24pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 11:42am: They are trying to morph global warming err I mean climate change into ocean acidification now that the climate is not actually changing, be afraid ... be very afraid  ;D So true Innocent_bystander Once their theory gets shot down they quickly jump on to something else. Lucky we have sceptics otherwise these stooges would be worshipping the IPCC findings like some sort of ten commandments from God himself. Acidification of the earths oceans and fresh water ways caused by increased CO2 absorption from the atmosphere is a fact By the way, reference to Acidification problems has been included in ALL of the IPCC report released thus far. Not that I would expect you denialist fossil priests to have read any peer reviewed literature on the subject let alone the executive summary of the IPCC reports. See what happens when you post spin and deceit? Always ends up the same way hey darkened Batman and his newly found side kick innocent bystander Like I said chimp, lucky we have sceptics to keep the alarmist propaganda under the microscope. Quote:

You seem to be confusing SCEPTICISM with DENIALISM

Only one of these is a crack pot baseless fundamentalist religion

Do you know which one it is?

She sells sea shells on the sea shore;
The shells that she sells are sea shells I'm sure.
So if she sells sea shells on the sea shore,
I'm sure that the shells are sea shore shells.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 1:39pm:

You seem to be confusing SCEPTICISM with DENIALISM Only one of these is a crack pot baseless fundamentalist religion Do you know which one it is?

I do but I have my doubts about you.........!!! :D ;D :P :-*

The flaw in Joanne Nova's argument:


Quote:

some calcifying critters

(not including shallow corals)

Ajax wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 2:58pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 1:39pm: You seem to be confusing SCEPTICISM with DENIALISM Only one of these is a crack pot baseless fundamentalist religion Do you know which one it is? I do but I have my doubts about you.........!!! :D ;D :P :-*

I hope so..... its very much a compliment

On the other hand I don't have any doubts about where you are coming from (that's assuming that you even know where you are)

[are you sure you wish to continue with this line of combat? It is looking a little embarrassing for you at the moment Mr Batman]

Ajax wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 12:24pm:

Once their theory gets shot down they quickly jump on to something else.

Actually, it's not a theory any more.

Chimp has proclaimed that AGW is "an undeniable fact".

Nice way to shut down debate, eh?   ;)

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 9:51pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 12:24pm: Once their theory gets shot down they quickly jump on to something else. Actually, it's not a theory any more. Chimp has proclaimed that AGW is "an undeniable fact". Nice way to shut down debate, eh?   ;)

Hey Greg

Its really amusing how they can't bare their science being scrutinised and yet that is what science is all about.

HHMMMNnnnn...........undeniable fact.....hey chimp

Like the hot spot in the tropopause that only exists in the computer circulation models of the alarmists....????

Like the missing heat of the last 15 years being sucked into the bottom layers of the ocean.......???????

OR was that the top layers of the ocean.....?????

Like no more glaciers by 2035.........??????

Like no more ice in the arctic by 2013......?????

Like ocean acidity of 0.3 pH units over the next 90 years will be catastrophic when ocean acidity changes much more than this on a daily bases.

Like the shonkey hockey stick which no one is allowed to analyse and climate gate......????

Like the correlation of temperature and CO2...???

Like rising sea levels which are not out of the norm...???

Like all natural disasters are due to AGW....???

Like they haven't tried this before in the 1940's and 1970's..??

Like the IPCC's 1990 prediction of unequivocal warming of 0.2 degrees celcius per decade when for the last 15 years we have only had 0.05 degrees celcius per decade.

And many more of your undeniable facts that have been nailed down once and for all as pseudo science.

Lucky for you chimp the sceptics can recognise snake oil when they see it.

Otherwise all these undeniable facts would have been gospel to you and your stupid AGW religion, and you guys would have defended this pseudo science to your graves.

The undeniable fact is sceptics are keeping these twits on the AGW gravy train honest.......!!!!!!

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 7:46am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 9:51pm: Ajax wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 12:24pm: Once their theory gets shot down they quickly jump on to something else. Actually, it's not a theory any more. Chimp has proclaimed that AGW is "an undeniable fact". Nice way to shut down debate, eh?   ;) Hey Greg Its really amusing how they can't bare their science being scrutinised and yet that is what science is all about.

The best way to avoid scrutiny is to label something as "an undeniable fact".

However, making a statement like that is also the best way to show that one is not really interested in (or indeed, aware of) the scientific method.  It's an indicator of both extreme arrogance and ignorance.

Claiming that AGW is an "undeniable ... fact of nature" is about as closed-minded as it gets.  Not a good quality, when it comes to science.i

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 8:22am:

Ajax wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 7:46am: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 9:51pm: Ajax wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 12:24pm: Once their theory gets shot down they quickly jump on to something else. Actually, it's not a theory any more. Chimp has proclaimed that AGW is "an undeniable fact". Nice way to shut down debate, eh?   ;) Hey Greg Its really amusing how they can't bare their science being scrutinised and yet that is what science is all about. The best way to avoid scrutiny is to label something as "an undeniable fact". However, making a statement like that is also the best way to show that one is not really interested in (or indeed, aware of) the scientific method.  It's an indicator of both extreme arrogance and ignorance. Claiming that AGW is an "undeniable ... fact of nature" is about as closed-minded as it gets.  Not a good quality, when it comes to science.

So its a theory that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased due to human activities?

Its a theory that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Its a theory that the earth has been warming?

Do you understand what the words in AGW even mean?

Anthropogenic Global Warming is an UNDENIABLE, OBSERVABLE FACT.

To deny it in public says a lot about how much you understand - and that's very little

Humans will be dealing with the AGW FACT even if you don't come along Greggy boy.

Its not about you Greggy - this is about responsible adults who care about their future and what sort of world their children will live in.

What you should do is publish your THEORY in peer reviewed theoretical journals. Good luck with the FACTS Greegy Boy

The whales eat the Krill!

We must think of the starving whales, think of the BABY whales,

think of the GAY whales!   Think of the LESBIAN whales!

we must STOP this slaughter, we should stage a demonstration.


OC

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 12:58pm:

Anthropogenic Global Warming is an UNDENIABLE, OBSERVABLE FACT.

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Kanye-West-Shaking-Head-No.gif

"Anthropogenic Global Warming is an UNDENIABLE, OBSERVABLE FACT.'


AGW is the greatest scam/fraud/conjob/mass hysteria in human history.

FIXED!



OC

Old Codger wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 3:07pm:

"Anthropogenic Global Warming is an UNDENIABLE, OBSERVABLE FACT.' AGW is the greatest scam/fraud/conjob/mass hysteria in human history. FIXED! OC

Andrew Bolt would be proud of you. You stuck to your lines.


Quote:

He knows nothing; and he thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career.  - George Bernard Shaw.

If you want to discuss Radiative Forcing, you've come to the right place. If you've just come here to heckle, your heckles will be removed.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 12:58pm:

Do you understand what the words in AGW even mean?

There are no words in 'AGW'. 

'AGW' is an acronym, containing three letters.

Each letter represents a word: Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Anthropogenic = caused by humans.

Global = involving the entire planet.

Warming = rising slightly in temperature.



Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 12:58pm:

Anthropogenic Global Warming is an UNDENIABLE, OBSERVABLE FACT.

No, it's a scientific theory.

- and we know the definition of Scientific theory, don't we?

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 3:23pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 12:58pm: Do you understand what the words in AGW even mean? There are no words in 'AGW'.  'AGW' is an acronym, containing three letters. Each letter represents a word: Anthropogenic Global Warming. Anthropogenic = caused by humans. Global = involving the entire planet. Warming = rising slightly in temperature. Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 12:58pm: Anthropogenic Global Warming is an UNDENIABLE, OBSERVABLE FACT. No, it's a scientific theory.

so you are claiming in public that the earth IS NOT warming, that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas?

The AGW fact really bothers you Greggy boy

Oh whats wrong, things heating up for you in here?

LIKE THE EARTH

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 6:58pm:

so you are claiming in public that the earth IS NOT warming, that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas? The AGW fact really bothers you Greggy boy Oh whats wrong, things heating up for you in here? LIKE THE EARTH

Why are you being such a monkey see monkey do...!!

Why like all alarmists are you twisting someone words as you would like  to see them instead of what they actually are.......?????

Sceptics don't disagree that the Earth is warming.

Sceptics don't disagree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Sceptics don't disagree that human CO2 emissions have a part in the current warming.

What sceptics disagree on is that human CO2 emissions are responsible for all the warming that has occurred in the last 60 odd years or so.

What sceptics disagree on is the pseudo science of the alarmists that all the warming is due to human CO2 emissions.

Sceptics are p!ssed that snake oil is being offered up as scientific evidence that the Earth has been warming only because of the increase in manmade CO2 emissions.

And your right i'm not an expert on the climate, but I can read and from what I have learnt the anthropogenic global warming religion is a scam based on a lie.

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 9:05pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 6:58pm: so you are claiming in public that the earth IS NOT warming, that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas? The AGW fact really bothers you Greggy boy Oh whats wrong, things heating up for you in here? LIKE THE EARTH Why like all alarmists are you twisting someone words as

Were the scientists researching the CFC/ozone depletion problem in the 1980s and 1990s Alarmists?

Did you agree with the research and international response? A response that was rapid and which banned CFCs globally.

I wonder what scientific methods they used? Which journals did they publish in? Were there collaborative investigations carried out by experts internationally that made recommendations?

Can you explain the difference between the CFC response and the response to mitigating the thermal effects of human driven carbon emissions?

Why not?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 6:58pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 3:23pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 12:58pm: Do you understand what the words in AGW even mean? There are no words in 'AGW'.  'AGW' is an acronym, containing three letters. Each letter represents a word: Anthropogenic Global Warming. Anthropogenic = caused by humans. Global = involving the entire planet. Warming = rising slightly in temperature. Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 12:58pm: Anthropogenic Global Warming is an UNDENIABLE, OBSERVABLE FACT. No, it's a scientific theory. The AGW fact really bothers you Greggy boy

The AGW theory isn't a fact, Chimp.  It's a scientific theory (one day you'll learn the difference).

And, it doesn't bother me at all.

You, however, seem to be close to having a coronary.

Settle, petal.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 6:58pm:

LIKE THE EARTH

Caps lock, and large font.

A sure sign that you're losing the plot (and the argument).

Remain calm, old boy.

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 9:05pm:

Sceptics don't disagree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Correct. Denialists do. Here's an example:


Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 9:01pm:

muso wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 1:17pm: Quote: OK, Let's start with the established fact that you don't believe in the Greenhouse Effect then. Are you going to change my mind...........???? [quote]If you ask any smart high school student studying science, they will call that causation the "Greenhouse Effect". By the above statement, you are denying the existence of the Greenhouse Effect. How can a science that is VERY FAR from SETTLED be taught as fact in our schools.....brainwashing.....!!!!!!

Another example:


Quote:

Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming Where We Stand on the Issue C. D. Idso and K. E. Idso Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change There is little doubt the air's CO2 concentration has risen significantly since the inception of the Industrial Revolution; and there are few who do not attribute the CO2 increase to the increase in humanity's use of fossil fuels. There is also little doubt the earth has warmed slightly over the same period; but there is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in CO2. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that future increases in the air's CO2 content will produce any global warming; for there are numerous problems with the popular hypothesis that links the two phenomena. A weak short-term correlation between CO2 and temperature proves nothing about causation. Proponents of the notion that increases in the air's CO2 content lead to global warming point to the past century's weak correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global air temperature as proof of their contention.  However, they typically gloss over the fact that correlation does not imply causation, and that a hundred years is not enough time to establish the validity of such a relationship when it comes to earth's temperature history.

Craig Idso - another denialist who doesn't believe that CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas.

muso wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 11:27pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 9:05pm: Sceptics don't disagree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Correct. Denialists do.

Correct.

Are there any in this forum?

Not really. The ones in this forum are probably too naive to be denialists. To be a denialist, you need to be smart. Despite the fact that you know that the established science is correct, you need to be able to lie convincingly so that gullible laymen like you and Ajax can be totally convinced by the rhetoric - Hook line and sinker.   

Christopher Monckton is probably a good example of a denialist. He's basically a crook, to the extent that he doesn't care if he's been caught out fiddling with graphs, reversing their axes, telling blatent lies and saying some really stupid things. He's a true professional crook and conman. You guys are just wannabees. You are not worthy.

You haven't even pretended to be members of the Houe of Lords.

muso wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 11:44pm:

... can be totally convinced by the rhetoric ...

What rhetoric is that?

Please explain.

Yes - What Rhetoric that is indeed.

I'm taking that as a rhetorical question.

Do you believe in the Greenhouse effect, Greggary ?

muso wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 11:49pm:

I'm taking that as a rhetorical question.

No squirming out of it.

It wasn't a rhetorical question: I want an answer.

So, what rhetoric are you talking about?

Time to man up.

Sometimes when faced with degeneracy, euthanasia is the only moral solution.

I wouldn't do that to him.

muso wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 12:03am:

I wouldn't do that to him.

You're running away, muso (and starting to look a little silly).

The rhetoric you were talking about?

Hmmm ... ?

What Rhetoric?  Blatent lies, half truths and downright simplifications, such as you'll find on Anthony Watt's site, the Heartland Institute, Craig Idso's family site, and the kind of waffle that Monckton comes up with. These are some examples of rhetoric with no scientific basis whatsoever.

It's quite seductive, because the message is simple, albeit deceiving. Much easier than wading through highly technical material.   

Goodnight.

muso wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 12:11am:

What Rhetoric?  Blatent lies, half truths and downright simplifications, such as you'll find on Anthony Watt's site, the Heartland Institute, Craig Idso's family site, and the kind of waffle that Monckton comes up with. These are some examples of rhetoric with no scientific basis whatsoever.

Can you please provide a link to me quoting any of these sources?

After, all you did say "gullible laymen like you and Ajax can be totally convinced by the rhetoric".

So, show us all where I say that I'm convinced by the rhetoric.

You can't, can you?

I'm calling you out as a lying troll, muso.

Unless you can support your claim, your credibility has just sunk lower than Chimp's (which, quite frankly, I didn't think was possible).

Over to you ...

http://www.beaker.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/CheckmateD.jpg


Too easy.

muso wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 11:44pm:

Christopher Monckton is probably a good example of a denialist. He's basically a crook, to the extent that he doesn't care if he's been caught out fiddling with graphs, reversing their axes, telling blatent lies and saying some really stupid things.

What possible motivation would he have to do that?, do you have any specific examples, and please don't quote Dikran Marsupial from scepticalcranks  ;D


Dikran


http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/gavin_small.jpg

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 12:18am:

muso wrote on Oct 9th, 2013 at 12:11am: What Rhetoric?  Blatent lies, half truths and downright simplifications, such as you'll find on Anthony Watt's site, the Heartland Institute, Craig Idso's family site, and the kind of waffle that Monckton comes up with. These are some examples of rhetoric with no scientific basis whatsoever. Can you please provide a link to me quoting any of these sources? After, all you did say "gullible laymen like you and Ajax can be totally convinced by the rhetoric". So, show us all where I say that I'm convinced by the rhetoric. You can't, can you? I'm calling you out as a lying troll, muso. Unless you can support your claim, your credibility has just sunk lower than Chimp's (which, quite frankly, I didn't think was possible). Over to you ...

You're just playing games and tiptoeing past the real agenda.  I'm not wasting my time Googling denialist sites.  The very fact that you use words like "alarmist" and the fact that you are not even interested in the science shows that you are part of the true faithful, led by Rupert Murdoch's media empire and Gina Rinehart's poster boy Andrew Bolt.

It's just a game to you. You're smart enough to stay away from the science, because deep down, you realise that you can't provide anything of substance to back up your claims. 

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 5:52am:

What possible motivation would he have to do that?, do you have any specific examples, and please don't quote Dikran Marsupial from scepticalcranks  ;D

Does insanity require a motivation?  I don't know Dikran.

Monckton actually used to do reports for cashed up companies that wanted a slice of the squillions of free taxpayer dollarios being uselessly squandered by the idiot left.
His advice was cash in early as the whole thing is a scam that will implode eventually, how smart was he?  ;D

muso wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 6:40am:

... you realise that you can't provide anything of substance to back up your claims.

What "claims" are they, exactly?

muso wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 6:40am:

I'm not wasting my time Googling denialist sites.

Nobody's asking you to do that.

I asked you to "show us all where I say that I'm convinced by the rhetoric."

You conveniently skipped right past that.

muso wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 12:11am:

What Rhetoric?  Blatent lies, half truths and downright simplifications, such as you'll find on Anthony Watt's site, the Heartland Institute, Craig Idso's family site, and the kind of waffle that Monckton comes up with. These are some examples of rhetoric with no scientific basis whatsoever. It's quite seductive, because the message is simple, albeit deceiving. Much easier than wading through highly technical material.    Goodnight.

Hey muso the highlighted bit that's what the IPCC is full of.

Lucky for you true believers there are sceptics that actually question the validity of what the IPCC says....???

Otherwise you guys would be preaching a science that is only found in the IPCC computer circulation models and NOT IN THE REAL WORLD.

for example if it wasn't for sceptics you would still believe,

There is a hot spot in the tropopause,

All glaciers would melt by 2035,

There was no medieval warm period,

There was no mini ice age,

Co2 and temperature correlate,

0.3 ph ocean acidification will kill all life on Earth,

A carbon tax ETS will save us all from human CO2 emissions,

Polar bears would become extinct,

We have never before had this much CO2 in our atmosphere,

Man is totally responsible for the last 60 years of warming, even though we're coming out of a mini ice age and for the last 30 odds years our sun was very active.

We would have 0.2 degrees celcius per decade of unequivocal warming,

In the old days when politics didn't meddle with science the failing of the above points would have been enough to throw the AGW hypothesis in the rubbish bin where it belongs.

Ajax wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 9:54am:

muso wrote on Oct 9th, 2013 at 12:11am: What Rhetoric?  Blatent lies, half truths and downright simplifications, such as you'll find on Anthony Watt's site, the Heartland Institute, Craig Idso's family site, and the kind of waffle that Monckton comes up with. These are some examples of rhetoric with no scientific basis whatsoever. It's quite seductive, because the message is simple, albeit deceiving. Much easier than wading through highly technical material.    Goodnight. Hey muso the highlighted bit that's what the IPCC is full of. Lucky for you true believers there are sceptics that actually question the validity of what the IPCC says....??? Otherwise you guys would be preaching a science that is only found in the IPCC computer circulation models and NOT IN THE REAL WORLD. for example if it wasn't for sceptics you would still believe, There is a hot spot in the tropopause, All glaciers would melt by 2035, There was no medieval warm period, There was no mini ice age, Co2 and temperature correlate, 0.3 ph ocean acidification will kill all life on Earth, A carbon tax ETS will save us all from human CO2 emissions, Polar bears would become extinct, We have never before had this much CO2 in our atmosphere, Man is totally responsible for the last 60 years of warming, even though we're coming out of a mini ice age and for the last 30 odds years our sun was very active. We would have 0.2 degrees celcius per decade of unequivocal warming, In the old days when politics didn't meddle with science the failing of the above points would have been enough to throw the AGW hypothesis in the rubbish bin where it belongs.

Ha ha good one, don't forget also that they believe storms floods and droughts only began in 1979 and prior to that every day was perfect  ;D

Jeepers, from the OP it kind of struck me that discussing food chains might have been an idea with some merit. Kind of a natural progression from the information provided. I must learn to lower my expectations I guess. Why would information in the OP actually inform the debate?

I have this idea that food chains can and often are pretty delicate things, i.e. depending on the niche a food group takes up in a food chain can depend on it's eradication (for whatever reason) being a critical event or otherwise adapted to. Meh, maybe just a dud idea and not something our species needs to worry about too much.

It is estimated that 99% of all species ever to grace the Earth are now extinct, so yes they are all on a knife edge, humans aren't though, to a certain extent they have outsmarted the system, no other species can f#ck with humans, the only way they can be gotten rid of is by their own hand or some catastrophic disaster like a meteorite or super volcano, something as piss weak as co2 just isn't going to do the job I'm afraid.  ;)

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 1:38pm:

Jeepers, from the OP it kind of struck me that discussing food chains might have been an idea with some merit. Kind of a natural progression from the information provided. I must learn to lower my expectations I guess. Why would information in the OP actually inform the debate? I have this idea that food chains can and often are pretty delicate things, i.e. depending on the niche a food group takes up in a food chain can depend on it's eradication (for whatever reason) being a critical event or otherwise adapted to. Meh, maybe just a dud idea and not something our species needs to worry about too much.

Do you think too much ice can affect the food chain...????

Why don't you check out what's actually been going on in the Antarctic with respect to ice/snow and how much it has increased lately.................?????

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 10:35am:

Ha ha good one, don't forget also that they believe storms floods and droughts only began in 1979 and prior to that every day was perfect  ;D

LMFAO that's a good one, I'll remember it...cheers.

Ajax wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 3:30pm:

Why don't you check out what's actually been going on in the Antarctic with respect to ice/snow and how much it has increased lately.................?????

Global warming hysterics already have that covered, more snow and ice in Antarctica is a sure sign of global warming apparently, just as surely as less snow and ice in Antarctica would have been a sign of global warming  ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 3:36pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 9th, 2013 at 3:30pm: Why don't you check out what's actually been going on in the Antarctic with respect to ice/snow and how much it has increased lately.................????? Global warming hysterics already have that covered, more snow and ice in Antarctica is a sure sign of global warming apparently, just as surely as less snow and ice in Antarctica would have been a sign of global warming  ;D

ROFL.....ROFL......LOL.....thanks for the good laugh...!!

Ajax wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 3:32pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 9th, 2013 at 10:35am: Ha ha good one, don't forget also that they believe storms floods and droughts only began in 1979 and prior to that every day was perfect  ;D LMFAO that's a good one, I'll remember it...cheers.

Its so true though, I was talking to an hysterical climate change nut on another board that claimed it had never snowed in his town before and the recent snowfall was surely a sign that the climate was out of control and humans were to blame, after five minutes of googling I came up with dozens of photos of previous snowfalls in his town, some dating back to 1919, do you think he thanked me for bringing this to his attention though?, no definately not, all he did was scream DENIAR  ;D ;D ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 3:41pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 9th, 2013 at 3:32pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 9th, 2013 at 10:35am: Ha ha good one, don't forget also that they believe storms floods and droughts only began in 1979 and prior to that every day was perfect  ;D LMFAO that's a good one, I'll remember it...cheers. Its so true though, I was talking to an hysterical climate change nut on another board that claimed it had never snowed in his town before and the recent snowfall was surely a sign that the climate was out of control and humans were to blame, after five minutes of googling I came up with dozens of photos of previous snowfalls in his town, some dating back to 1919, do you think he thanked me for bringing this to his attention though?, no definately not, all he did was scream DENIAR  ;D ;D ;D

LOL...your damned if you do and damned if you don't..!!

Just cant win with this mob............!!!

We have to find a cure.....LOL.... and fast..!!

Ajax wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 3:45pm:

We have to find a cure.....LOL.... and fast..!!

Well evidence doesn't seem to work ... what the hell else can we do?, psychotherapy maybe?  ;D 

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 3:41pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 9th, 2013 at 3:32pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 9th, 2013 at 10:35am: Ha ha good one, don't forget also that they believe storms floods and droughts only began in 1979 and prior to that every day was perfect  ;D LMFAO that's a good one, I'll remember it...cheers. Its so true though, I was talking to an hysterical climate change nut on another board that claimed it had never snowed in his town before and the recent snowfall was surely a sign that the climate was out of control and humans were to blame, after five minutes of googling I came up with dozens of photos of previous snowfalls in his town, some dating back to 1919, do you think he thanked me for bringing this to his attention though?, no definately not, all he did was scream DENIAR  ;D ;D ;D

we need a thread about stupid things alarmists say....if I may add this gem..

One of my old cycling mates in Brisbane had a magpie swoop him about 2 months ago, you know, totally out of maggie swooping season, anyhow, he posted on Facebook that this was proof of global warming and that events like this should remove all doubt from the minds of those clearly not 'smart' enough to realise that the world was gonna explode or something  ;D ;D ;D

It never crossed his mind that the maggie might have had a hangover or something...perhaps the maggie was high on 'elevated' co2 levels????, alternatively just didn't give a damn what day of the year it was  :D

Rider wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 4:18pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 9th, 2013 at 3:41pm: Ajax wrote on Oct 9th, 2013 at 3:32pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 9th, 2013 at 10:35am: Ha ha good one, don't forget also that they believe storms floods and droughts only began in 1979 and prior to that every day was perfect  ;D LMFAO that's a good one, I'll remember it...cheers. Its so true though, I was talking to an hysterical climate change nut on another board that claimed it had never snowed in his town before and the recent snowfall was surely a sign that the climate was out of control and humans were to blame, after five minutes of googling I came up with dozens of photos of previous snowfalls in his town, some dating back to 1919, do you think he thanked me for bringing this to his attention though?, no definately not, all he did was scream DENIAR  ;D ;D ;D we need a thread about stupid things alarmists say....if I may add this gem.. One of my old cycling mates in Brisbane had a magpie swoop him about 2 months ago, you know, totally out of maggie swooping season, anyhow, he posted on Facebook that this was proof of global warming and that events like this should remove all doubt from the minds of those clearly not 'smart' enough to realise that the world was gonna explode or something  ;D ;D ;D It never crossed his mind that the maggie might have had a hangover or something...perhaps the maggie was high on 'elevated' co2 levels????, alternatively just didn't give a damn what day of the year it was  :D

Its totally bizzare isn't it?, somewhere 1000 years ago an aborigine would have been swooped by an out of season maggie, I just had a conversation with another climate hysteric that claimed bushfires never happened before man buggered the planet yet all of the Australian bush has adapted itself over millions of years to bushfire conditions to the point that seeds will not even sprout unless they have been roasted by a bushfire first    ;D

Rider wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 4:18pm:

we need a thread about stupid things alarmists say....

Such as AGW is an "undeniable ... fact of nature".

"Anthropogenic Global Warming is an UNDENIABLE, OBSERVABLE FACT."

Thanks Chimp.

Haha they don't call him chimp for nothing, give him another banana.  ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 4:42pm:

Rider wrote on Oct 9th, 2013 at 4:18pm: we need a thread about stupid things alarmists say.... Such as AGW is an "undeniable ... fact of nature". "Anthropogenic Global Warming is an UNDENIABLE, OBSERVABLE FACT." Thanks Chimp.

haha...yeah that was a .303 thru the foot alright  :)

Such as AGW is an "undeniable ... fact of nature".

"Anthropogenic Global Warming is an UNDENIABLE, OBSERVABLE FACT."    BULLSHIT!"



Fixed!



OC

Old Codger wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 5:10pm:

Such as AGW is an "undeniable ... fact of nature". "Anthropogenic Global Warming is an UNDENIABLE, OBSERVABLE FACT."    BULLSHIT!" Fixed! OC

Now, now ... don't be like that.

According to the alarmists on here, AGW is no longer a theory: it's an "undeniable fact".  Strike that nasty word - theory - out of your dictionaries.  We don't need it any more.

So, that being the case, there's absolutely no point in arguing with them.  I mean, it's a fact.  You can't argue with facts!

And, why should we believe them?  Well, because ... um ... hang on, I know there's a reason ... I had it before ... because they ...  :-/

Hey guys

Some things not right here...!!!!

Looks like all the alarmists have gone on holidays...???

Or is this the calm before the storm......!!!

Ajax wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 6:46pm:

Hey guys Some things not right here...!!!! Looks like all the alarmists have gone on holidays...??? Or is this the calm before the storm......!!!

Calm before the storm.

I'm guessing we'll all be banned shortly.

Honestly though, they just have no reasonable comeback.  They've really had their arses handed to them.

Just a few links to consider, as difficult as it might be that there are two sides to the "denier" line of not paying attention or ignoring the facts as it were. Ironically, so far this debate diatribe has demonstrated an abject refusal to explore facts, as a true sceptic might.

In short, a real sceptic would be able to produce critically thought out, challenging ideas etc, that have been thoroughly reviewed. Further, and this is the difference between the deniers present and a genuine sceptic, the would very clearly point out where assumptions are being made (due to a lack of credible evidence for example) and/or when a denier has (as has occurred repeatedly) produced cherry picked data. I acknowledge they appear to be all over it when it comes to the believers having been perceived to be cherry picking.

Therein lieth the conundrum. At least a genuine sceptic would actually be sceptical, about both sides of information...

So, anyway, a couple of links highlighting the flaws in the denial camp. Just to balance things up.

By all means go down idiot street making claims about what I am saying, no amount of reason will stop that I am sure.

You are invited to take the time to read what is presented, but, bare in mind you may find it confronting, oh wait, you might not as well, I am sceptical.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/28/ipcc-climate-change-deniers

http://www.350resources.org.uk/2013/09/12/greenpeace-catelogues-the-deniers-campaign-to-discredit-climate-change-evidence/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/01/30/another-day-another-intentionally-distortive-effort-to-discredit-climate-change/

I deliberately chose a diverse set of comments, here, to demonstrate a bit of a common theme. One that deniers (and here is the shock horror bit) consistently simply deny.... Who would have thunk it?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 6:47pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 9th, 2013 at 6:46pm: Hey guys Some things not right here...!!!! Looks like all the alarmists have gone on holidays...??? Or is this the calm before the storm......!!! Calm before the storm. I'm guessing we'll all be banned shortly. Honestly though, they just have no reasonable comeback.  They've really had their arses handed to them.

I am sceptical if you would actually recognise what an arse handing might look like, regardless of the direction.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 6:37am:

Just a few links to consider ...

There's nothing left to consider.

Didn't you get the memo?

"Anthropogenic Global Warming is an UNDENIABLE, OBSERVABLE FACT."  (Chimp_Logic)



http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/ipcc_titanic.jpg

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 10:18am:

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 10th, 2013 at 6:37am: Just a few links to consider ... There's nothing left to consider.

Yep, my point well and truly demonstrated.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 11:20am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 10th, 2013 at 10:18am: Phemanderac wrote on Oct 10th, 2013 at 6:37am: Just a few links to consider ... There's nothing left to consider. Yep, my point well and truly demonstrated.

I'm merely restating the alarmists' view, not mine.

They want to shut down debate.

They have declared that "Anthropogenic Global Warming is an UNDENIABLE, OBSERVABLE FACT."

Doesn't sound like they want to consider any new possibilities, does it now?

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 11:28am:

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 10th, 2013 at 11:20am: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 10th, 2013 at 10:18am: Phemanderac wrote on Oct 10th, 2013 at 6:37am: Just a few links to consider ... There's nothing left to consider. Yep, my point well and truly demonstrated. I'm merely restating the alarmists' view, not mine. They want to shut down debate. They have declared that "Anthropogenic Global Warming is an UNDENIABLE, OBSERVABLE FACT." Doesn't sound like they want to consider any new possibilities, does it now?

NO, you merely avoided actually reading links provided to engage in reasoned and thoughtful debate and threw out a lame arse kind of tit for tat childish comment.

Now, by all means continue being childish and uncritical in your thinking, that is your problem, but, respectfully, please refrain from using my links and/or posts as nothing more than fodder for you contemptuous and inane argument.

To be perfectly frank, I provided further information intended specifically to further the debate. Your demonstrated inability or unwillingness to engage with that demonstrates an equal desire to deliberately shut down any debate. Demonstrably a case of pot kettle black....

By all means, read the links and challenge the assertions, comments, observations etc made there or not, that's your choice but don't expect courteous, reasonable or considerate responses when that which you provide is churlish dribble completely unrelated to the information provided.

If you wanna carry on your school yard spat with "they" whoever "they" happen to be (do you need a tinfoil hat by the way?) go for it, but don't use me or my comments in it and expect acquiescence.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 11:54am:

NO, you merely avoided actually reading links provided to engage in reasoned and thoughtful debate ...

Incorrect: I read the provided links.

However, once again, you have missed the point.

The alarmists have shut down debate.

They have declared that "Anthropogenic Global Warming is an UNDENIABLE, OBSERVABLE FACT."

Read it again, slowly.

"undeniable" ... "fact".

They have no interest in "reasoned and thoughtful debate".

They've made up their minds and nothing will change them.

Sad.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 12:01pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 10th, 2013 at 11:54am: NO, you merely avoided actually reading links provided to engage in reasoned and thoughtful debate ... Incorrect: I read the provided links. However, once again, you have missed the point. The alarmists have shut down debate. They have declared that ""Anthropogenic Global Warming is an UNDENIABLE, OBSERVABLE FACT." Read it again, slowly. "undeniable" ... "fact". They have no interest in "reasoned and thoughtful debate". They've made up their minds and nothing will change them. Sad.

Sorry, BUT no again....

Now you are getting into lying territory, is that deliberate?

A poster on the forum made the claim. You have extrapolated that somehow to a they, which, either deliberately or in ignorance you present as something akin to a conspiracy to "shut down debate"....

Clearly, nothing is shut down, except your apparent willingness or capacity to actually debate the topic.

You are merely rearranging terms of reference to argue one point badly made, rather than furthering the debate. I see no evidence in your posting of having read either the links or most of what I have said. You nit pick the little bits and move it along from there. That too is shutting down debate, I don't expect you to pick up on that point, or, if you do to acknowledge its voracity.

Point is, I am not arguing with this mythical "they" who you allude to, nor am I a member of the mythical "they" - yet you obfuscate, dodge and weave to avoid actually having the debate that is apparently important, only not important enough to engage in. You clearly run the risk of being part of the very "they" you talk about, but I suspect you know that all to well.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 12:08pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 10th, 2013 at 12:01pm: Phemanderac wrote on Oct 10th, 2013 at 11:54am: NO, you merely avoided actually reading links provided to engage in reasoned and thoughtful debate ... Incorrect: I read the provided links. However, once again, you have missed the point. The alarmists have shut down debate. They have declared that ""Anthropogenic Global Warming is an UNDENIABLE, OBSERVABLE FACT." Read it again, slowly. "undeniable" ... "fact". They have no interest in "reasoned and thoughtful debate". They've made up their minds and nothing will change them. Sad. Sorry

Yes.  It's a sorry state of affairs.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 6:37am:

Just a few links to consider, as difficult as it might be that there are two sides to the "denier" line of not paying attention or ignoring the facts as it were. Ironically, so far this debate diatribe has demonstrated an abject refusal to explore facts, as a true sceptic might. In short, a real sceptic would be able to produce critically thought out, challenging ideas etc, that have been thoroughly reviewed. Further, and this is the difference between the deniers present and a genuine sceptic, the would very clearly point out where assumptions are being made (due to a lack of credible evidence for example) and/or when a denier has (as has occurred repeatedly) produced cherry picked data. I acknowledge they appear to be all over it when it comes to the believers having been perceived to be cherry picking. Therein lieth the conundrum. At least a genuine sceptic would actually be sceptical, about both sides of information... So, anyway, a couple of links highlighting the flaws in the denial camp. Just to balance things up. By all means go down idiot street making claims about what I am saying, no amount of reason will stop that I am sure. You are invited to take the time to read what is presented, but, bare in mind you may find it confronting, oh wait, you might not as well, I am sceptical. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/28/ipcc-climate-change-deniers http://www.350resources.org.uk/2013/09/12/greenpeace-catelogues-the-deniers-campaign-to-discredit-climate-change-evidence/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/01/30/another-day-another-intentionally-distortive-effort-to-discredit-climate-change/ I deliberately chose a diverse set of comments, here, to demonstrate a bit of a common theme. One that deniers (and here is the shock horror bit) consistently simply deny.... Who would have thunk it? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

If it wasn't for sceptics you would still believe that,

The missing heat of the last 15 years in somewhere in the oceans.

There was no medieval warm period or mini ice age.

All glaciers would be gone by 2035.

All the ice in the arctic would be gone by 2013.

There is a hot spot in the tropopause.

Co2 & temperature correlate.

Mosquitos and malaria would spread because of AGW.

All natural disasters are caused from anthropogenic global warming.

Ocean acidity of 0.3 pH units over the next 90 years will be catastrophic when ocean acidity changes much more than this on a daily bases.

The shonkey hockey stick which no one is allowed to analyse..............climate gate......????

Sea levels are rising uncontrollably...!!!!!

The IPCC's 1990 prediction of unequivocal warming of 0.2 degrees celcius per decade when for the last 15 years we have only had 0.05 degrees celcius per decade.

And there much more but you get the general idea.

The AGW hypothesis should be tossed in the trash can once and for all.

Ajax wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 3:43pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 10th, 2013 at 6:37am: Just a few links to consider, as difficult as it might be that there are two sides to the "denier" line of not paying attention or ignoring the facts as it were. Ironically, so far this debate diatribe has demonstrated an abject refusal to explore facts, as a true sceptic might. In short, a real sceptic would be able to produce critically thought out, challenging ideas etc, that have been thoroughly reviewed. Further, and this is the difference between the deniers present and a genuine sceptic, the would very clearly point out where assumptions are being made (due to a lack of credible evidence for example) and/or when a denier has (as has occurred repeatedly) produced cherry picked data. I acknowledge they appear to be all over it when it comes to the believers having been perceived to be cherry picking. Therein lieth the conundrum. At least a genuine sceptic would actually be sceptical, about both sides of information... So, anyway, a couple of links highlighting the flaws in the denial camp. Just to balance things up. By all means go down idiot street making claims about what I am saying, no amount of reason will stop that I am sure. You are invited to take the time to read what is presented, but, bare in mind you may find it confronting, oh wait, you might not as well, I am sceptical. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/28/ipcc-climate-change-deniers http://www.350resources.org.uk/2013/09/12/greenpeace-catelogues-the-deniers-campaign-to-discredit-climate-change-evidence/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/01/30/another-day-another-intentionally-distortive-effort-to-discredit-climate-change/ I deliberately chose a diverse set of comments, here, to demonstrate a bit of a common theme. One that deniers (and here is the shock horror bit) consistently simply deny.... Who would have thunk it? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D If it wasn't for sceptics you would still believe that, The missing heat of the last 15 years in somewhere in the oceans. There was no medieval warm period or mini ice age. All glaciers would be gone by 2035. All the ice in the arctic would be gone by 2013. There is a hot spot in the tropopause. Co2 & temperature correlate. Mosquitos and malaria would spread because of AGW. All natural disasters are caused from anthropogenic global warming. Ocean acidity of 0.3 pH units over the next 90 years will be catastrophic when ocean acidity changes much more than this on a daily bases. The shonkey hockey stick which no one is allowed to analyse..............climate gate......???? Sea levels are rising uncontrollably...!!!!! The IPCC's 1990 prediction of unequivocal warming of 0.2 degrees celcius per decade when for the last 15 years we have only had 0.05 degrees celcius per decade. And there much more but you get the general idea. The AGW hypothesis should be tossed in the trash can once and for all.

i





Hey give the catastrophic global warmies a break, they are all very tired after moving them goal posts all over the field  ;D

Ajax wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 3:43pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 10th, 2013 at 6:37am: Just a few links to consider, as difficult as it might be that there are two sides to the "denier" line of not paying attention or ignoring the facts as it were. Ironically, so far this debate diatribe has demonstrated an abject refusal to explore facts, as a true sceptic might. In short, a real sceptic would be able to produce critically thought out, challenging ideas etc, that have been thoroughly reviewed. Further, and this is the difference between the deniers present and a genuine sceptic, the would very clearly point out where assumptions are being made (due to a lack of credible evidence for example) and/or when a denier has (as has occurred repeatedly) produced cherry picked data. I acknowledge they appear to be all over it when it comes to the believers having been perceived to be cherry picking. Therein lieth the conundrum. At least a genuine sceptic would actually be sceptical, about both sides of information... So, anyway, a couple of links highlighting the flaws in the denial camp. Just to balance things up. By all means go down idiot street making claims about what I am saying, no amount of reason will stop that I am sure. You are invited to take the time to read what is presented, but, bare in mind you may find it confronting, oh wait, you might not as well, I am sceptical. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/28/ipcc-climate-change-deniers http://www.350resources.org.uk/2013/09/12/greenpeace-catelogues-the-deniers-campaign-to-discredit-climate-change-evidence/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/01/30/another-day-another-intentionally-distortive-effort-to-discredit-climate-change/ I deliberately chose a diverse set of comments, here, to demonstrate a bit of a common theme. One that deniers (and here is the shock horror bit) consistently simply deny.... Who would have thunk it? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D The missing heat of the last 15 years in somewhere in the oceans.

I thought this web site might not seriously interest you. However, it at least related to something you posted....

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

Oh and as to the peanut isle comment regarding shifting goal posts, I would site the deft movement away from that which I posted to comments about John Cook as a significant goal post shift, but hey, I guess that is convenient.